‘Animated’ meeting over sign restrictions

A “sign of the times” has turned into a Time of the Signs for the Oak Ridge community.

Beverly Majors/Staff

by Beverly Majors

bmajors@oakridger.com

A “sign of the times” has turned into a Time of the Signs for the Oak Ridge community.

Though the Secret City’s nearly year-long controversial sign ordinance issue is closer to being resolved, Oak Ridge City Council still has a few kinks to work out before approving a final version of the proposed zoning edict.

On Monday night, Council held a public hearing and the first reading of the proposed electronic message centers (EMCs) or moving copy signs ordinance — which would alter sign regulations adopted in 2003. The new mandate will allow displayed messages but won’t allow animation, if Council approves the ordinance as written.

The moving copy signs have been on the discussion block with city officials, business leaders and residents for nearly a year, with conversations starting last fall when some residents reportedly complained about particular Oak Ridge business signs being “nuisances” or traffic-safety problems. Then, last December, the city of Oak Ridge sent out letters to several businesses stating that their signs violated city ordinances and that failing to comply to city code could result in court action.

Although the city later canceled the threatening letters and asked instead for a review, the initial action — reported on by both local and regional media — put the statute firmly on the front burner, prompting six months of discussions, reviews and revision of the ordinance, which led to this week’s public hearing and first reading of the amended act.

As previously mentioned, the new ordinance, recommended by the Oak Ridge Planning Commission, won’t allow animation or video — but will allow static messages. And this became a major discussion point with Council members Monday night.

Mayor Pro Tem Jane Miller proposed amending a portion of the animation section of the ordinance, recommending the removal of language prohibiting animated video or continuous scrolling of messages. Animation has been the most hotly debated element of the sign restriction policy and appears to be supported by most business leaders … if not city staffers.

Miller says that most drivers aren’t distracted by the signs. “Anyone with their wits about them is looking at the road,” she said.

“It sounds like a pretty deep cut,” said fellow Councilman David Mosby, asking for the city staff’s viewpoint.

“I think it’s the real crux of why we are here,” Oak Ridge Community Development Director Kathryn Baldwin responded. “This is the one issue that is still outstanding.”

Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce President Parker Hardy said the ordinance is more than 90 percent on common ground with the business leaders, but he still has two concerns — animation and a proposed letter from a sign manufacturer when a new sign is installed.

Hardy called the letter a minor issue, but asked that the business group be allowed to “explore” the animation issue for another 30 days, especially since the advertising is geared toward young people. The Chamber chief said he would like to draw into the conversation the MBA students who visited Oak Ridge earlier and provided the city with recommendations relevant to the renovation of the historic Jackson Square townsite.

Planning Commission Chair Terry Domm said the commissioners tried to address three basic issues when making decisions about the signs ordinance:

• Traffic safety;

• The business community’s needs; and

• The impact on residential areas.

“Whatever is put into place has to be measurable and enforceable,” said Domm, adding that the proposed ordinance isn’t extreme … but in the middle of the road.

“It’s a reasonable proposal and can be amended later,” the Planning Commission chair stated.

Baldwin said city staff has no way to measure animation. Moving copy, she said, is for messaging and animation is for background.

Council member Mosby suggested the city of Oak Ridge should establish policy, then “we can fine tune it.”

“Animation has one objective,” said Council member Anne Garcia Garland, “to attract the eye of the driver.”

Garcia Garland said she thinks the Planning Commission gave this issue “thorough vetting,” adding that “we have cars that go 120 mph, but we don’t allow that.”

Miller’s amendment failed by a 3-4 vote with Miller and fellow Council members Trina Baughn and Chuck Hope voting for the amendment. Mosby, Garcia Garland, Councilman Charlie Hensley and Mayor Tom Beehan voted against the mayor pro tem’s amendment.

Council approved the original ordinance on first reading by a 4-3 vote with the same three members voting against the proposal and the same four voting for it.